If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Denver Post)   The first decade of the new millennium showed the most global warming EVAR. Nothing extreme here, move along citizens   (denverpost.com) divider line 350
    More: Scary  
•       •       •

6125 clicks; posted to Main » on 03 Jul 2013 at 12:54 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



350 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-07-03 04:02:34 PM  

teenytinycornteeth: Mikey1969: teenytinycornteeth: Mikey1969: boarch: You still live in the desert... Just because some are cold doesn't change the soundness of my advice.
Really? Semantics? I mentioned that I MOVED OUT of the "hottest region of our nation (colloquially referred to as "the desert")", just in time for the place that I moved to to start getting hotter. Saying that a desert isn't always hot isn't semantics, it's your ignorance being exposed, and I'm really sorry I hurt your feelings. I hope that you're not gonna take your ball and go home now.

THE SALT LAKE CITY DESERT

It still gets hot in Utah darling.  If you are so sensitive to the heat baby, perhaps you should MOVE SOMEWHERE THAT IS A DIFFERENT CLIMATE.


Yeah, an average high of 92.6 in July. Wow. Here's what I'm talking about(This last Week):

June 27  Average: 88  Actual 101
June 28 Average: 88 Actual 105
June 29 Average: 89  Actual 105
June 30 Average: 89  Actual 103
July 1  Average:   89 Actual 104
July 2 Average:    90 Actual 102

See, I moved for the 92.6 average, not the 12-17 degrees above normal.

But thanks for noticing.
 
2013-07-03 04:11:30 PM  

Mikey1969: teenytinycornteeth: Mikey1969: teenytinycornteeth: Mikey1969: boarch: You still live in the desert... Just because some are cold doesn't change the soundness of my advice.
Really? Semantics? I mentioned that I MOVED OUT of the "hottest region of our nation (colloquially referred to as "the desert")", just in time for the place that I moved to to start getting hotter. Saying that a desert isn't always hot isn't semantics, it's your ignorance being exposed, and I'm really sorry I hurt your feelings. I hope that you're not gonna take your ball and go home now.

THE SALT LAKE CITY DESERT

It still gets hot in Utah darling.  If you are so sensitive to the heat baby, perhaps you should MOVE SOMEWHERE THAT IS A DIFFERENT CLIMATE.

Yeah, an average high of 92.6 in July. Wow. Here's what I'm talking about(This last Week):

June 27  Average: 88  Actual 101
June 28 Average: 88 Actual 105
June 29 Average: 89  Actual 105
June 30 Average: 89  Actual 103
July 1  Average:   89 Actual 104
July 2 Average:    90 Actual 102

See, I moved for the 92.6 average, not the 12-17 degrees above normal.

But thanks for noticing.


I stand by my graphic.  You knew what the poster was saying "if you're hot, move away from the hot states" but you decided to go off on a rant about Antarctica.  That's called "being obtuse". Have a good holiday.
 
2013-07-03 04:13:29 PM  

ikanreed: Corvus: DesertDemonWY: The only thing you have proved is you know how to copy pasta

I gave your 4 specific examples showing the IPCC predictions where more conservative then actually occurred (I have many many more) and your response is "Well I am just going to ignore that because I don't want to believe it".

The guy is an outright liar and a bad person.  I'm not convinced he's a paid shill, but he's definitely intellectually dishonest.  Say one thing, ignore the fact that it's wrong.


This is going to be his next chart. He doesn't need actual data points to make no line. Just draw the line you want an label it "Actual" that sounds good enough!!!

i43.tinypic.com
 
2013-07-03 04:14:14 PM  

Kirzania: Confabulat: The data we DO have is pretty evident though. I'm still not sure why certain people (i.e., right-wing Republicans) refuse to accept what is common sense, really. If you add a bunch of CO2 to the atmosphere, what do you THINK will happen? It's like they refuse to accept basic physics or something because it is a liberal plot to destroy the economy, or something.

While I say we need to take way better care of this planet than we do, I just have to argue here. Data can be so misleading. Can you say, without a doubt in your mind, that perhaps some kind of climate change has NEVER happened in the past? No. We've had ice ages, world-altering meteor strikes, etc, etc. Can you verify with only a couple 100 years of data that THIS CHANGE HAPPENING NOW is a direct correlation of CO2 in the atmosphere? You can't because no one was around before and there was no data to prove or disprove it. Who's to say it's not just time for the Earth to warm up for a bit?
[img.pandawhale.com image 600x450]


And this is why we're doomed. Thanks for contributing!

Serious answer: 98% of climatologists, that's who.
 
2013-07-03 04:16:18 PM  

Kirzania: Can you verify with only a couple 100 years of data that THIS CHANGE HAPPENING NOW is a direct correlation of CO2 in the atmosphere?


Attribution of climate change isn't done by correlation.  It's done by physics.
 
2013-07-03 04:17:57 PM  

TheSwissNavy: Clever...for 15 years the rate of warming has been > 0, BUT INFINITESIMAL.

If u dont see the stastical trick u r a fool. I mean, clearlyyy the solution is 100% UN Fascism.


Or a huge strawman, riiiiiiiiiiite?
 
2013-07-03 04:25:27 PM  

Ambitwistor: Kirzania: Can you verify with only a couple 100 years of data that THIS CHANGE HAPPENING NOW is a direct correlation of CO2 in the atmosphere?

Attribution of climate change isn't done by correlation.  It's done by physics.


And it's also more than "a couple 100 years of data".
 
2013-07-03 04:27:52 PM  

flondrix: Corvus: Now, ice cores show that it's entirely likely that this is the worst warming in history (well, I guess the heavy volcanic period of proto-Earth might have been more significant), so I think he's wrong, but he doesn't have to be lying to say what he said. I don't like how people ascribe motives to comments when they are not there, when he says something about denying man-made global warming, yell away, but don't fight about what you think he meant when what he said is right in front of you, that's just silly.

It's not just about the temperature but it's that this is the fastest rate of change. Normal temperature fluctuations like this that occurred naturally in the past happened over hundreds of years, not decades. That's a very big difference to ecosystems and it also is a big hint that this is man's involvement.

Actually, we do have an example of a sudden dump of  a lot of CO2 into the atmosphere, which warmed the planet a big, which caused the sea floors and tundra to release all of their stored methane, which warmed the planet a LOT.  It's called the Eocene Extinction Event, and I guess since it has happened once before, the right wing is OK with it happening again.


Good point. I should have said:

Normal temperature fluctuations like this that occurred naturally in the past happened over hundreds of years, not decades UNLESS THERE IS SOME MAJOR EVENT.

And yes it usually leads to mass extinctions and other major issues.
 
2013-07-03 04:30:28 PM  

teenytinycornteeth: Mikey1969: teenytinycornteeth: Mikey1969: teenytinycornteeth: Mikey1969: boarch: You still live in the desert... Just because some are cold doesn't change the soundness of my advice.
Really? Semantics? I mentioned that I MOVED OUT of the "hottest region of our nation (colloquially referred to as "the desert")", just in time for the place that I moved to to start getting hotter. Saying that a desert isn't always hot isn't semantics, it's your ignorance being exposed, and I'm really sorry I hurt your feelings. I hope that you're not gonna take your ball and go home now.

THE SALT LAKE CITY DESERT

It still gets hot in Utah darling.  If you are so sensitive to the heat baby, perhaps you should MOVE SOMEWHERE THAT IS A DIFFERENT CLIMATE.

Yeah, an average high of 92.6 in July. Wow. Here's what I'm talking about(This last Week):

June 27  Average: 88  Actual 101
June 28 Average: 88 Actual 105
June 29 Average: 89  Actual 105
June 30 Average: 89  Actual 103
July 1  Average:   89 Actual 104
July 2 Average:    90 Actual 102

See, I moved for the 92.6 average, not the 12-17 degrees above normal.

But thanks for noticing.

I stand by my graphic.  You knew what the poster was saying "if you're hot, move away from the hot states" but you decided to go off on a rant about Antarctica.  That's called "being obtuse". Have a good holiday.


And I told you that your "graphic's" temps were fine. We're far exceeding those, which is what I had a problem with. I wasn't being obtuse, the other poster was being a moron. I merely pointed out his/her failing. "Desert" has nothing to do with heat, and if you are going to continue to promote ignorance, you can't go around calling people obtuse when they try and educate you on the ACTUAL definition of words.

Besides, where am I going to move? The East, where they think everybody in the Southwest still rides horses to their 1 room schools?
 
2013-07-03 04:31:22 PM  
Let me paraphrase most of the "skeptics" in the thread:

Well I have no scientific background, have not read any scientific papers on this topic, have spent about 5 minute looking into it from non-scientific sources, and I think I know better than about this topic then the 99% of scientists who say I am wrong and who have studied this their entire lives because it's what I want to believe.
 
2013-07-03 04:32:16 PM  

Kirzania: While I say we need to take way better care of this planet than we do, I just have to argue here. Data can be so misleading. Can you say, without a doubt in your mind, that perhaps some kind of climate change has NEVER happened in the past? No. We've had ice ages, world-altering meteor strikes, etc, etc. Can you verify with only a couple 100 years of data that THIS CHANGE HAPPENING NOW is a direct correlation of CO2 in the atmosphere? You can't because no one was around before and there was no data to prove or disprove it. Who's to say it's not just time for the Earth to warm up for a bit?


Regardless, most people are TRYING to make the point that we don't need to help it out any more than is necessary.
 
2013-07-03 04:34:32 PM  

Mikey1969: Kirzania: While I say we need to take way better care of this planet than we do, I just have to argue here. Data can be so misleading. Can you say, without a doubt in your mind, that perhaps some kind of climate change has NEVER happened in the past? No. We've had ice ages, world-altering meteor strikes, etc, etc. Can you verify with only a couple 100 years of data that THIS CHANGE HAPPENING NOW is a direct correlation of CO2 in the atmosphere? You can't because no one was around before and there was no data to prove or disprove it. Who's to say it's not just time for the Earth to warm up for a bit?

Regardless, most people are TRYING to make the point that we don't need to help it out any more than is necessary.


Also the Earth does not magically heat up by itself, like people like him seem to believe. There has to be a cause. They ONLY cause that has shown to be remotely possible is the additional CO2.
 
2013-07-03 04:37:11 PM  
I wish there was away to tell the chat bots from human posters.
 
2013-07-03 04:40:21 PM  

Realist29: Global Warming isn't a hard pill to swallow - its the way you turds sell it.


"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." - H. L. Mencken
 
2013-07-03 04:43:53 PM  

Alunan: Cool story bro:

I made this image several years ago for Fark:

[whowhatwhy.com image 600x800]


Then this showed up 4 months later:

[blogontherun.files.wordpress.com image 607x819]

Then a US Senator printed this and showed it on the Senate floor 2 months ago:

[www.whitehouse.senate.gov image 683x457]

I feel like I should have copyrighted it or something.


That's one of my favorite images out there. Thanks for putting together the argument so succinctly, I have used it to devastating effect in the past.
 
2013-07-03 04:49:06 PM  

candidus: Realist29: Global Warming isn't a hard pill to swallow - its the way you turds sell it.

"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." - H. L. Mencken


Right like fighting Polio was all about trying to rule right?
 
2013-07-03 04:50:01 PM  

candidus: Realist29: Global Warming isn't a hard pill to swallow - its the way you turds sell it.

"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." - H. L. Mencken


So tell us how the the world fight against AIDS is all about trying to rule and how you are against that.

*sitting back ready to listen*
 
2013-07-03 04:50:29 PM  

Realist29: I learned something new today. Science is based on consensus. Who knew?


Really? You "learned" that from this thread? Because, aside from denier lies, nobody says this.

It is a really simple concept:
- scientists of many different fields do their research
- they independently come up with their conclusions - supported by evidence
- they publish and discuss their results with with other scientists - both in their fields and in other fields
- they discover that all their results point in the same direction - that their research independently supports each other
- when all this independent research from these different scientists points to the same conclusion it is called a consensus

The science is not done by consensus. But when all the independant science points to the same conclusion, like AGW, it is called a consensus.

I'm sure you'll drag out this same strawman next thread ... deniers always do.
 
2013-07-03 04:53:16 PM  

Mikey1969: Besides, where am I going to move? The East, where they think everybody in the Southwest still rides horses to their 1 room schools?


Did you guys move the school washrooms indoors now? Awesome.
 
2013-07-03 04:56:04 PM  

Farking Canuck: I'm sure you'll drag out this same strawman next thread ... deniers always do.


They still bring out the same talking points that have been refuted every thread. They believe repeating something enough makes it true.

I always ask a couple questions:

Show me when climate change has happened so quickly with out some major event being the cause.

Give some other explanation that has more data that supports it then anthropomorphic climate change.

Guess what answers I get? None, or the same debunked talking points they have been repeating for years.

I used to have a link to a site that had all the talking points debunked do I could just cut and paste. I guess I need to find that again.
 
2013-07-03 04:58:50 PM  

Corvus: Right like fighting Polio was all about trying to rule right?


I have read some unflattering things about Salk's behavior once he had a working vaccine--not desire to rule per se, but a lot of self-advancing butt-kissing and failure to credit his co-workers.

I can certainly see someone trying to cure a disease solely to promote themselves, but I suspect that in most cases a cure is much more likely to come from thankless slogging.
 
2013-07-03 05:02:15 PM  

EnviroDude: And there is global warming on Mars too. Everybody panic!

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming. ht ml


So he's saying that two out of eight planets agree--the Sun is to blame?

Or he's saying that a three year shrinkage in the Southern Polar Cap during the Southern Summer proves that the last thirty years on Earth don't count?

But if the Sun is warming, wouldn't it be warming in the Winter too? Wouldn't it be warming in the Northern Hemisphere of Mars too? Wouldn't it be warming all year round on the whole? Wouldn't it be warming for everybody, not just two (which might easily be pure coincidence).

The second page of the article which you posted are spent quoting the majority of scientists who disagree that the Sun is warming, or that it s a major factor in either Earth or Martian climate change.

How does the Sun warming disprove the idea that greenhouses gases trap heat? How does it disprove the fact that greenhouse gases trap heat (well known fact--since the 1830s or thereabouts, seeing as the scientist who developed Fourier transforms, a very major scientist connected what he named l'effet de serre (the greenhouse effect) to l'industrie humaine (human activity, not just "industry" in the modern sens) in the late 1820s, as the Industrial Revoluton was making its way across the Channel into Belgium and eventually, France and Germany?

In fact, is it not a mathematical and therefore incontrovertible fact that the input of the Sun's output would have to correspond with the warming (on every planet and body on which the Sun shines) for this to prove that the Sun is playing a minor role in climate change on Earth (and other planets)?

Isn't that the basis of the criticism of all theories and theorists who claim the Sun Done It? Because the solar output has not risen in sync with terrestrial climate change. If you model this change, taking the Sun out of one run, the model matches the observations better, not worse, and if you model climate change taking out the human inputs (GHG emissions, land use change, aerosol emissions, etc.), the model fits the facts worse, not better. In fact, any fool who can see six inches in front of their eyes can see that the models which include human activity (l'industrie humaine) matches the effects observed, while models which are based on the solar activity do not.

The Sun was actually cooler in the 1990s than usual, but we got the hottest year then on record in 1998. We have, despite BS claims that scientists are saying the world is cooling, have had a record year each year since, and have beaten 1998 at least once in 2005, and again in 2012 IIRC.

Every little thing I can raise against your very deeply buried implicit claim that the Sun is causing any warming (AND THE SUN ALONE) and this guy's nutter claims neatly refutes the idea that the Sun is a bigger player in this game than we are.

By the by, I seem to recall the scientists whose work showed some warming on Mars (Southern hemisphere, one or two years) did not claim that this was NOT a contradiction let alone a refutation of climate scence showing anthropogenc inputs to be more significant than solar inputs, but they went out of their way to explain that climate on Mars does not match climate on Earth or work the same way.

Do you know what global warming on Mars looks like? Well, in the summer, at the equator, the ground temperature can reach a balmy 60 or 65F. That is to say, the atmosphere warms in the Summer. To a distance of about 10 inches above the ground. During the heat of Summer. On the Equator. Where dark rock is exposed to the feeble rays of the Sun.

Dark rock, in fact, was proposed as the reason for Martian warming in the Southern hemisphere when I was reading these so-called Mars Warming articles. You see, the atmosphere at the time (a three year period, natch) that these same measurements that Dr. A-hole-whatzit is crowng about, was unusually clear, as it sometimes is by Nature's ever-changing course untrimmed, and this meant that dust did not obscure the darker lava flows and what not. Hence, warming. At last to an altitude of ten inches above the relatively hot black top of Mars.

And here's another thing to chew on--the Polar caps of Mars are composed mostly of CO2, a greenhouse gas, and water (H2O), another greenhouse gas of note. When they melt, they warm the Martian atmosphere, which s very cold and thin, by much more than the same percentage of change in GHG could do on Earth. The Martian atmosphere is already 98% or 99% Carbon Dioxide, which means that it is ALL greenhouse gas. Adding more has a different effect on Mars--it actually thickens the atmosphere appreciably, whereas on Earth, CO2 accounts for a tiny amount of air relative to the inert, non-greenhouse gases, Nitrogen and Oxygen, which make up all but a tiny percent of our atmosphere.

In short, it is pure coincidence that Mars and Earth sometimes warm together (as pointed out in the article YOU posted by better scientists than the guy you are referencing). 97% of our atmosphere is not GHG, so the effects of the Sun and all other factors that speed or slow warming are different. 97% of our climate scientists agree that the Sun is not the main or even an increasing factor in global warming.

I am not saying that your are quoting a nutter and a crank. But you are quoting a Minority Report composed entirely of Contrarians who ignore the proponderence of the evidence against them, even which this would seem to be overwhelmingly decisive.

Ah, what the Hell, he's a farking crank. A farking crank who is a scientist rather than a farking crank who is a lay person or a paid propagandist (or is he?), but a farking crank for all that.

The thing about climate change is that the charts and graphs are composed of many different superimposed waves representing changing factors, some economic, some ecological. You have to be able to separate the effects of the varous waves to determine what is one of the causes, what is working the other way, and how important each of these positive and negative feedbacks are to the output.

In short, you simply can't say the Sun Did It. This is not a murder mystery, although denialists are making it a murder mystery by resisting political and economic change that can save lives, even turn profits for those who make the changes at the expense of those who stick to the dumber, less efficient old ways, such as burning filthy bunker coal rather than using modern improvements in energy production and collection, such as the new improved sails.

Some of this stubborn folly impacts on us all, some just lightens the bottom line of companies, countries, households.

But the choice between fact-based and faith-based actions is yours and quite frankly, FARK FAITH-BASED ANYTHING.
 
2013-07-03 05:03:02 PM  
To all the people who state flatly that the temperature is rising at an unprecedented level

Extreme Cave Diving would beg to differ. Got to the 41 minute mark and see how the measurements were made, and what the conclusion is.
 
2013-07-03 05:05:39 PM  

Farking Canuck: Mikey1969: Besides, where am I going to move? The East, where they think everybody in the Southwest still rides horses to their 1 room schools?

Did you guys move the school washrooms indoors now? Awesome.


Nah, they don't smell as much when they have all that ventilation. Seriously though, nothing sucks more than an outdoor non-chilled drinking fountain on a hot Az day in August. It's like drinking coffee where someone forgot the grounds.
 
2013-07-03 05:07:53 PM  

Corvus: I used to have a link to a site that had all the talking points debunked do I could just cut and paste. I guess I need to find that again.


Like this one? http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
 
2013-07-03 05:09:15 PM  
Can I have a t-shirt that says: 2 of 8 planets agree: The Sun is to blame?

I'm rather proud of that one. It may be one of many refutations, but it's cool when you can fit something into ten words or less--especially if you're Brantgoose and do tend to run to sentences, paragraphs, arguments, essays, and potentially, books rather than Tweets.
 
2013-07-03 05:09:46 PM  
My favorite Deniers talking points:

Climate Scientists are unaware that the sun heats up the earth.
Climate Scientists don't know that you supposed to normalize data.
Climate Scientists "fudge" the numbers because they normalize the data. (I have had the same person argue both of those. That they are wrong because they normalize data and because they don't)
Since Climate change can happen naturally it's impossible for climate change to be caused by man. (Just like fires can be cause by nature therefore can be caused by man)
Until Climate Science is 100% proven (which nothing is ever really 100% proven) we should do nothing.
We don't understand fully how climate change works with weather 100% therefor it can't exist. (We understand how climate change works more than thing like gravity. Should we say gravity doesn't exist because we don't understand it?)

These arguments are not logical. They are not making logical arguments.

A logical argument would look like: Here is something else that has more evidence and data to support the change in global temperature...

They don't do this. Why? Because they don't have anything. All they have is FUD not a better hypothesis you are just trying to cloud the issue. Scare tactics of paranoid delusions of  the UN sending UN troops to arrest you for driving your car. (funny how they tell us the UN does nothing except send letter except when they want to scare you.)

If you have better science then SHOW IT. But so far it's all just throwing FUD around.
 
2013-07-03 05:11:12 PM  

flondrix: Corvus: Right like fighting Polio was all about trying to rule right?

I have read some unflattering things about Salk's behavior once he had a working vaccine--not desire to rule per se, but a lot of self-advancing butt-kissing and failure to credit his co-workers.

I can certainly see someone trying to cure a disease solely to promote themselves, but I suspect that in most cases a cure is much more likely to come from thankless slogging.


And that means it was trying all done for an "urge to rule" how exactly?
 
2013-07-03 05:16:22 PM  

LeftCoast_eh: To all the people who state flatly that the temperature is rising at an unprecedented level

Extreme Cave Diving would beg to differ. Got to the 41 minute mark and see how the measurements were made, and what the conclusion is.


Average global temperatures. Not the temperatures everywhere on the globe. You understand those two things are different right?
 
2013-07-03 05:24:02 PM  
Corvus:

Dude, you need a hobby

/of course, this could be your hobby...if so carry on!
 
2013-07-03 05:27:20 PM  

Corvus: Regardless, most people are TRYING to make the point that we don't need to help it out any more than is necessary.

Also the Earth does not magically heat up by itself, like people like him seem to believe. There has to be a cause. They ONLY cause that has shown to be remotely possible is the additional CO2.


Well, it DOES go through natural heating and cooling cycles. It obviously warms up, or it would stay ice age all the time, conversely, it obviously cools off, or we would never have had ice ages in the past. Like I said though, there's no reason why we need to help out any more, and I'm completely flummoxed when those morons out there try and argue with that simple point.
 
2013-07-03 05:28:14 PM  

Corvus: LeftCoast_eh: To all the people who state flatly that the temperature is rising at an unprecedented level

Extreme Cave Diving would beg to differ. Got to the 41 minute mark and see how the measurements were made, and what the conclusion is.

Average global temperatures. Not the temperatures everywhere on the globe. You understand those two things are different right?


Sure, you take the temperatures everywhere on the globe and average them.

And then you adjust them using the current normalization strategy.

But then, that's not what the video talks about, is it? It shows that temperatures have risen (and fallen) several degrees (not tenths of a degree) in the span of fifty years. Several times.
 
2013-07-03 05:40:18 PM  

Mikey1969: Corvus: Regardless, most people are TRYING to make the point that we don't need to help it out any more than is necessary.

Also the Earth does not magically heat up by itself, like people like him seem to believe. There has to be a cause. They ONLY cause that has shown to be remotely possible is the additional CO2.

Well, it DOES go through natural heating and cooling cycles. It obviously warms up, or it would stay ice age all the time, conversely, it obviously cools off, or we would never have had ice ages in the past. Like I said though, there's no reason why we need to help out any more, and I'm completely flummoxed when those morons out there try and argue with that simple point.


Yes but they are not caused by magic, they are caused by things like the sun or by volcanic eruptions. It does not just happen by itself some factor causes them to happen.
 
2013-07-03 05:46:55 PM  

LeftCoast_eh: Corvus: LeftCoast_eh: To all the people who state flatly that the temperature is rising at an unprecedented level

Extreme Cave Diving would beg to differ. Got to the 41 minute mark and see how the measurements were made, and what the conclusion is.

Average global temperatures. Not the temperatures everywhere on the globe. You understand those two things are different right?

Sure, you take the temperatures everywhere on the globe and average them.

And then you adjust them using the current normalization strategy.

But then, that's not what the video talks about, is it? It shows that temperatures have risen (and fallen) several degrees (not tenths of a degree) in the span of fifty years. Several times.


Well it just keeps running an ad on me so I can't get it to that mark and am not going to sit through it for 40mins.
 
2013-07-03 05:54:52 PM  

SquiggsIN: Corvus: Mikey1969: Corvus: Regardless, most people are TRYING to make the point that we don't need to help it out any more than is necessary.

Also the Earth does not magically heat up by itself, like people like him seem to believe. There has to be a cause. They ONLY cause that has shown to be remotely possible is the additional CO2.

Well, it DOES go through natural heating and cooling cycles. It obviously warms up, or it would stay ice age all the time, conversely, it obviously cools off, or we would never have had ice ages in the past. Like I said though, there's no reason why we need to help out any more, and I'm completely flummoxed when those morons out there try and argue with that simple point.

Yes but they are not caused by magic, they are caused by things like the sun or by volcanic eruptions. It does not just happen by itself some factor causes them to happen.

Not to play devil's advocate but, technically volcanic activity COOLS the Earth (from the inside out)

 www.wired.com

I did not say only heating now did I? I was talking about heating and cooling cycles.
 
2013-07-03 05:57:13 PM  

SquiggsIN: Corvus: Mikey1969: Corvus: Regardless, most people are TRYING to make the point that we don't need to help it out any more than is necessary.

Also the Earth does not magically heat up by itself, like people like him seem to believe. There has to be a cause. They ONLY cause that has shown to be remotely possible is the additional CO2.

Well, it DOES go through natural heating and cooling cycles. It obviously warms up, or it would stay ice age all the time, conversely, it obviously cools off, or we would never have had ice ages in the past. Like I said though, there's no reason why we need to help out any more, and I'm completely flummoxed when those morons out there try and argue with that simple point.

Yes but they are not caused by magic, they are caused by things like the sun or by volcanic eruptions. It does not just happen by itself some factor causes them to happen.

Not to play devil's advocate but, technically volcanic activity COOLS the Earth (from the inside out)


And now you weren't being a devils advocate that is one takes the other side even if they don't believe it. You were being more of a pedantic ass bringing up a point that had nothing to do with the points being actually discussed (about temperature changes not global warming) because you wanted to show off something you learned.
 
2013-07-03 05:58:42 PM  
Corvus: LeftCoast_eh: But then, that's not what the video talks about, is it? It shows that temperatures have risen (and fallen) several degrees (not tenths of a degree) in the span of fifty years. Several times.

Well it just keeps running an ad on me so I can't get it to that mark and am not going to sit through it for 40mins.


I can't get it to play either, but there is a transcript available.  Search down for "Peter K. Swart".  I don't see anything in there about several degrees temperature change being measured in a 50-year time span.  I do see something about precipitation changes in that time span.  But you have to be careful about what conclusions you draw.  You can get big changes at a single site if, for example, it's near the boundary of a precipitation band or jet stream whose location shifts slightly.  It doesn't by itself imply a large global change. Swart has found regional spatial patterns in paleoclimate records before, but I don't know about that far back (11 kya), or that fast.
 
2013-07-03 06:09:22 PM  

jaybeezey: Houston, Tx is in for the nicest 4th of July day that I can ever remember. If this is the result of Global Climate Change I'm for it.

Going out to idle the jeep in driveway all day.


This attitude (troll? maybe, but a lot of actual humans believe this) is why I hate humans. I'm glad we're going to completely fark up our planet so we can't get off this rock and destroy more of the universe. We're are in the process, right now, of proving we are not worthy. Well played!
 
2013-07-03 06:20:27 PM  

sure haven't: netizencain: "most global warming EVAR. "

"But going back to 1880"

The concept of time baffles most people.  Just like the reports of the hottest temperatures in Death Valley.  Oh really, then tell me the temperature in Death Valley on July 1st, 921 AD.  You can't... can you?  Recorded historical temperatures are so infinitesimally small.

I'm not denying global temperature rising, but I hate the science that some people use.

I agree brother 100%.

I'll look forward to us both now being called luddite religious fanatic retards.


Dear self-styled Luddite Religious Fanatic Retards,

I am back after losing a long post to one of those pesky "features" that are included in toolbars when you neglect to click yes or no in the well-hidden tick box when adding or updating useful software.

I will be briefer this time. I agree whole-heartedly that humans do not really understand scale--time scale or spattial scale--not to mention logic, probability, relevance, and so forth. So many abstractions our brains are poorly designed to understand and employ.

But the relevant time scale for an argument about anthropogenic inputs to the climate system is human scale. We have only had thermometers for a couple or three centuries. An Italian invented the first mercury column thermometer while studying air pressure, if I recall correctly. He observed that heat makes mercury expand and cold makes it contract. Of course, we now know that "cold" does not exist. It is merely the absence of heat.

We have not been able to study climate science scientifically for more than a few centuries for lack of facts, ideas, instruments, and institutions, such as the scientific method, so all our hard data must needs be modern. Fortunately, the problem is not much older than the data.

Prior to 1800, the human populaton of the Earth was less than one billion. For most of that time, humans were a few thousands or millions of ape-like creatures that used about 2,000 Calories each obtained from food and drink.

The mastery of fire dates back to about 800,000 years ago probably, although the oldest evidence is much younger (hearths tend to get destroyed, it is only recently that somebody thought to distinguish between lightning strikes--which happen on hill tops preferentally, from human fires which happen on bottom lands where there is water and food).

We have been farking with the world on a global scale since we mastered the use and abuse of fire for land-clearing, hunting, creating clear lines of sight for arrows and rocks, etc.

We have begun to understand the world and to study it with exactitude only since the adoption of the scientific method, and boy, has it made a big difference. But human brains have yet to catch up to reason. We reason poorly if at all. We are prone to wishful thinking which Steve Colbert has called truthiness and which others call faith-based thinking.

In short, I agree whole-heartedly with the observation that humans just don't get it, but have to point out that your fallacy is a failure to do just what you are implicitly accusing scientists and those of us in the fact-based community of doing, namely not grasping the role of time scale.

And some joker has already given a suspicously quick and precise answer to the question of what the temperature was in Phoenix, Arizona, well before Europeans arrived and helped build it.

Well, it's probably not exact, so it's not "right" but it is in the range of most probable answers, so if the joker were serious and were humble enough to include some indication of probability (misunderstood) and confidence level (also misunderstood), he might be right.

But a scientist wouldn't have an opinion under he applied the scientific method, gathered data, inferred an answer from the data, and published it, so his peers could pick it apart with logic and glee, two things which are more compatible than you think.
Give my regards to your longsuffering wives,

Sincerely,

Evilutionist Commie Gay Bastard Atheist Hoaxer

P.S. The proper time scale to discuss Anthropogenic-anything is human. The proper time to debate the reality and importance of Anthropogenc climate change is yesterday, which is to say, from about 1975 to 1995. The debate is over except for those who use unfair and unscientific rhetoric to prolong the inevitable political bullshiatting and to delay the inevitable lawsuits and attempts to thwart lawsuits which follow when an industry such as Big Tobacco or Big Tar tries to cover its fat butttocks from its victims and their advocates.

The old Cold Warriors who bullshiated us on nuclear power and nuclear war have retired from science but they have not retired from politics and bullshiating. Not by a long shot. When they weren't busy fighting Commie Peaceniks and Commie Traitor Scientists and Commie Greens and Commie Churches and Commie Unions and Schooteachers, who said nukes were not healthy for children or other living things, they moved on to anti-science positions on asbestos in your lungs, smoke and tar in your lungs, acid rain, climate change, ozone depletion, and so forth.

Who is hoaxer and who is hoaxed? Hard to say. But if you watch The Last Man on Earth (liberal Vincent Price) and The Omega Man (conservative Charlton Heston), you will see some light. They're based on the same short story by a French writer, but they could not be more politically opposite.

The Vincent Price character is racked with self-doubt and grief and is earnestly trying to correct his error and make his peace with conscience and humanity.

The Right Wing Nut Cold Warrior played by Chuck is not racked with anything. It's all the fault of those damn Commie Hippies. Also, black girls, you can fark 'em but you can't marry 'em. At the end of the movie, the Paranoid SOB (Chuck) is crucified (literally) for his sins as well as the sins of the bad Zombie-like Commie Hippies. Which proves that you shouldn't fark 'em either.

Did he ever find the Antidote? Yes, I guess he did. He made it out of his own flesh and blood (using the Boy as lab rat, IIRC). Like God the Father and God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost, three-in-one magic snake oil.

Amen.

I like Vincent Price better than Charlton Heston, but that doesn't change any of the facts which face us, despite a massive pseudo-fact- manufacturing industry slipping their Grocer's Thumb on the Scales of Truth and Probability.

Reality is that which, when you cease to believe in it, continues to exist. --Philip K. Dick
 
2013-07-03 06:32:30 PM  
Hmmm, the video plays for me without ads.

Basically they found stalagmites underwater in a cave in the Bahamas which had bands of Sahara dust in them. The bands correspond with higher global temperatures, and the width of the bands indicates a short time period. They think that giant dust storms blew in from the Sahara, dumped iron rich dust (which accumulated in the stalagmite, which at that time was above the water level), and also altered global temperature. Since we are in a drought period in Africa, they seem to think that we might be entering the same cycle again.
 
2013-07-03 06:37:22 PM  

Handsome B. Wonderful: Watch me not care.


When your children suffer for your not caring, I hope they blame you.
 
2013-07-03 06:52:15 PM  

Realist29: The United States government can't track people with expired Visas. How am I supposed to believe that in their infinite wisdom they can track global warming(oh wait its "climate change" now) trends with any degree of accuracy or truth? Didn't the "tree ring" theory debunk years worth of feigned altruism in the English climate science community? How do we know it was colder in 1865 than it is now? Great Great Grandpa's diary entries about his trick knee?


You sound like a scientist. So I can't trust you.
 
2013-07-03 07:02:27 PM  

Evil High Priest: Handsome B. Wonderful: Watch me not care.

When your children suffer for your not caring, I hope they blame you.


What specific alterations in human activity do you suggest to stop the looming disaster?
Be specific, not general.
And, "Giving all our money to people in suits!" isn't an answer.
 
2013-07-03 07:03:03 PM  

SlowMind: genner: Confabulat: Kirzania: Confabulat: The data we DO have is pretty evident though. I'm still not sure why certain people (i.e., right-wing Republicans) refuse to accept what is common sense, really. If you add a bunch of CO2 to the atmosphere, what do you THINK will happen? It's like they refuse to accept basic physics or something because it is a liberal plot to destroy the economy, or something.

While I say we need to take way better care of this planet than we do, I just have to argue here. Data can be so misleading. Can you say, without a doubt in your mind, that perhaps some kind of climate change has NEVER happened in the past? No. We've had ice ages, world-altering meteor strikes, etc, etc. Can you verify with only a couple 100 years of data that THIS CHANGE HAPPENING NOW is a direct correlation of CO2 in the atmosphere? You can't because no one was around before and there was no data to prove or disprove it. Who's to say it's not just time for the Earth to warm up for a bit?
[img.pandawhale.com image 600x450]

That's what climatologists DO. They figure out why things change.

I swear, global warming deniers say "natural variations!" and throw up their hands like that explains a damn thing. SCIENCE DOES NOT WORK LIKE THAT.

Scientists don't go "natural variations!" and quit their jobs, idiot. They figure out what's up. Do you think it never occurred to a climatologist that "natural variations!" occur? Of course they know that! It's what they do!

The problem is there's too much money on both sides of the debate and not enough scientists that are willing to piss off the people who are giving them grant money. It's no wonder there's so little trust in the scientific method.

As a scientist and card carrying member of the American Geophysical Union, I'm getting a kick out of your comments.

Do you know how to make your name, in a good way, as a politician? Get elected year after year?  Proudly proclaim a viewpoint that people with votes and/or money (prefe ...


So many words.. And I can guarantee you, they will not sway one denier "brain". It's frustrating that they won't learn "words".
 
2013-07-03 07:04:45 PM  

LeftCoast_eh: Hmmm, the video plays for me without ads.

Basically they found stalagmites underwater in a cave in the Bahamas which had bands of Sahara dust in them. The bands correspond with higher global temperatures, and the width of the bands indicates a short time period. They think that giant dust storms blew in from the Sahara, dumped iron rich dust (which accumulated in the stalagmite, which at that time was above the water level), and also altered global temperature. Since we are in a drought period in Africa, they seem to think that we might be entering the same cycle again.


The dust blows happened when the water that is now in the oceans was tied up in glaciers and the sea levels were much lower, like 250 to 450 feet lower. The US continental shelves were the beaches. And yes, it will happen again. And we'll be the dust that blows and gets emplaced in the caves.
 
2013-07-03 07:05:37 PM  

flondrix: Alunan: Then a US Senator printed this and showed it on the Senate floor 2 months ago:

That last incarnation starts with "Which is more likely?" then shows only one scenario.


Well it was a US Senator...
 
2013-07-03 07:10:24 PM  

Corvus: Also the Earth does not magically heat up by itself, like people like him seem to believe. There has to be a cause. They ONLY cause that has shown to be remotely possible is the additional CO2.


This is sheer lunacy on a par with religious delusion.
Hey, you know that big hot thing in the sky? The Sun.
It adds energy, 24 hours a day, to the big open thermodynamic system that is the Earth!
Wow!

The more you know!
 
2013-07-03 07:24:30 PM  

J. Frank Parnell: HaywoodJablonski: I'm cool with that. We could lose 80% of the population and not miss a beat. Also our natural resources will last 5 times as long

Just make sure you include the richest 2% who did all the pillaging and polluting of the planet for their own gain in that 80%.


Unfortunately, they are the most likely to survive. So we are breeding for short sighted, evil behavior. Swell.
 
2013-07-03 07:27:08 PM  

flondrix: and I guess since it has happened once before, the right wing is OK with it happening again.


They are traditionalists, bless their hearts.
 
2013-07-03 07:37:44 PM  

Corvus: Farking Canuck: I'm sure you'll drag out this same strawman next thread ... deniers always do.

They still bring out the same talking points that have been refuted every thread. They believe repeating something enough makes it true.

I always ask a couple questions:

Show me when climate change has happened so quickly with out some major event being the cause.

Give some other explanation that has more data that supports it then anthropomorphic climate change.

Guess what answers I get? None, or the same debunked talking points they have been repeating for years.

I used to have a link to a site that had all the talking points debunked do I could just cut and paste. I guess I need to find that again.


This is nice. The tack I have found effective is to ask point blank, What evidence, exactly, would be enough to sway your opinion. (crickets)
 
Displayed 50 of 350 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


Report